rowan williams is archbishop of canterbury, the world chief protestant - how practical is a secular society?

Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too dull to
understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its teaching.
This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is fundamentally
the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common men believed what
it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But theologians should preach,
not teach, just as philosophers should teach, not preach. Theologians
should not attempt to demonstrate, because they cannot do it, and
philosophers must be careful not to get belief mixed up with what they
prove, because then they can no longer prove anything. Now, to preach
creation is just a handy way to make people feel that God is their Master,
which is true even though, as is well known by those who truly
philosophize, nothing of the sort ever happened.

Etienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers, p. 52

“The culture of total state provision collapsed during and after the
Cultural Revolution; under Deng Xiaoping, the new tolerance of capitalist
enterprise fostered a driven and selfish climate; the one-child policy
designed to save China from demographic disaster resulted in an ageing
population, a generation of children both indulged and crippled with
expectations - and a record of forced abortion and sterilisation.
Frustrations about not having the "right" to a male child intensified a
contempt for women’s dignity among the uneducated public.”
—
“So the ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would
be seen - no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils - is a
politically dangerous one. It assumes that what comes first in society is
the central political "licensing authority", which has all the resource it
needs to create a workable public morality.

“Few places have tried as systematically as China to set this in stone; and
now there is a tacit admission of defeat.” [Quoted from Rowan Williams, timesonline.co.uk]

It is the Church of Rome that has done most
to bring down the Russian socialist empire.

Religion has often acted as ally of the state, and often as a
mitigator of the worst of power.

Everything I have learned advises me that a dull person without
‘religion’ is a rather reliable road to individual psychopathic
behaviour.

Here is Bertrand Russell’s version:

“The civilized man is distinguished from the savage mainly by prudence,
or, to use a slightly wider term, forethought.”

“British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett last week issued the latest European demand to close down the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The existence of the prison is "unacceptable" and fuels Islamic radicalism around the world, she said, echoing a recent chorus of complaints from Europe about U.S. counterterrorism policy.

“Behind the scenes, however, the British government has repeatedly blocked efforts to let some prisoners leave Guantanamo and return home.

“According to documents made public this month in London, officials there recently rejected a U.S. offer to transfer 10 former British residents from Guantanamo to the United Kingdom, arguing that it would be too expensive to keep them under surveillance. Britain has also staved off a legal challenge by the relatives of some prisoners who sued to require the British government to seek their release.

“Other European governments, which have been equally vocal in assailing Guantanamo as a human rights liability, have also balked at accepting prisoner transfers. A Turkish citizen who was born and raised in Germany was finally permitted to return from Guantanamo in August, four years after the German government turned down a U.S. proposal to release him.

“In addition, virtually every country in Europe refused to grant asylum to several Guantanamo prisoners from China who were not being sent home because of fears they could face political harassment there. The Balkan nation of Albania agreed to take in five of the Chinese in May, but only after more than 100 other nations rebuffed U.S. pleas to accept them on humanitarian grounds, State Department officials said.” [emphasis by abelard.org]

The loudest condemnations of Guantanamo are coming from Britain. Last year, Bliar’s socialist government introduced “control orders”. “Control orders” is an slimy way of saying “anything, including secret house arrest, without trial and without access to either the charges or evidence against you” - a system that is both more draconian than Guantanamo and has far less oversight or openness than the Americans enforce on their government.

Beckett and her fellow-travellers, like so many morally bankrupt whiners, seem to believe it is enough to complain that things are not perfect, without offering any alternative solutions to the legitimate problems we all face. Such people cravenly take up the ostrich position, then hope that if they shout loudly enough about the imperfections of the world that their behaviour will go unnoticed.

No sane entity can take seriously those who complain that we should not have removed Saddam, while at the same time offering no alternative way to deal with a murderous dictator who

was trading oil money for more and more powerful weapons;

had invaded two countries and shelled a third;

was engaged in large-scale murder and torture of ‘his’ people;

had used chemical weapons;

had once attempted to produce nuclear weapons and was attempting to hide what he was doing from the legitimate authorities;

was paying the families of terrorists for their ‘good works’ - like blowing themselves up on packed buses;

was corrupting the UN and our ‘allies’ via bribes from his oil money.

Similarly, no person can take seriously those who complain about Guantanamo, while at the same time offering no alternative way to deal with people captured in an ongoing conflict against Jihadis,

whose prime aim appears to be the torture and murder of as many civilians and infidels as possible;

who interpret their religion to encourage lying for the cause;

and where the evidence could lead to the torture and death of our own combatants if made known to the enemy.

That last is fairly inevitable if ‘fair trial’ is afforded, as seen with Lynne Stewart, the New York lawyer recently convicted for passing information for the enemy.

the fossil media and moonbat left will believe anything - the auroran sunset

“ "The officers said the tank unit fired two 120 mm high velocity depleted uranium rounds straight down the main road, creating a powerful vacuum that literally sucked guerrillas out from their hideaways into the street, where they were shot down by small arms fire or run over by the tanks." ” [Reuters, March 2003]

MSBC and various others in the fossil media were also taken in at the time. They all later deleted their reports from their websites.

Looking on Google, you will see the moonbat left have not been so careful - the first two page titles from that search are:

“US using uranium WMDs in Iraq”
and
“FromOccupiedPalestine.org - Iraq”

“The Balochistan Post of Quetta said the vacuum created had such intensity that the soldiers were not only sucked out into the open from their hideout, but their flesh and blood was also sucked out of their bodies.”

Often with people who don’t enunciate well or have weird accents, I watch
their lips real closely. Others have mentioned sun glasses, some people wear them because their
eyes are weak to light, often people who are part blind.

In fact, wearing a veil has the effect of making other people around you
half blind.

Being a computer, I like working through the net as I don’t have to read
all that daffy emotionalism most people put into their existence and expression.

Bank robbers wear masks in order to steal your wages.
What do masks do for females? stop them stealing your souls?

It looks like a way of objectifying females so’s they don’t walk off
the shelves, without permission. It stops the toys talking to the potential customers.

There is a growing group of dissatisfied public service workers blogging their experiences with the inevitable mess that is any government ‘run’ project. Here are three examples: a teacher, a policeman and a doctor.

First the teacher - calling himself Frank Chalk - who is apparently working in an inner-city state school. Here Chalk gives an example of the inevitable consequences of socialist attempts to ‘perfect’ the humanity by force:

“I called into my local Fish and Chip shop last night and found the proprietor in a very upbeat mood. When I remarked on this, he explained that he was celebrating the Government's new initiative on healthy eating in schools.

“Somewhat puzzled, I listened to him explain that the Comprehensive a few hundred metres from his door has got rid of their vending machine and has taken chips off the canteen menu.

“He spotted an opportunity straight away and installed a gigantic new fridge bursting with cans and bottles and has invested in a new double sized deep fat fryer!

“He has had to take on an assistant to cope with the extra lunchtime demand and even admitted that to his shame, a few months ago he had gone on a march organised by local parents to protest at the quality of school dinners.”

Chalk overeggs the problems, but then the British always had a tendency to whine. It is important to keep in mind that things are improving despite the incompetence and remaining problems. Schools remain unpleasant prisons for those guilty of being too young, but they are not the hell-holes that they were fifty years ago, or even twenty years ago. However the lack of concentration camp conditions does mean establishing a disciplined environment is a much more complicated problem than in the old days of sadism, bullying, beatings and “sit in your desk, shut up, turn to page fifty-nine and do the two hundred examples while I sit here and do the crossword”.

Neither should you doubt that some of the problems are indeed very serious. As one of Chalk’s correspondents ironically described the attitude of many coping with the worst problems in our inner-city sink schools, “that idyllic phase of life between bunking off school and going to prison”.

Second up is a policeman, who calls himself Inspector Gadget. The government doesn’t take kindly to government employees telling the electorate about what they are actually doing, hence most of these people write pseudonymously. Some kind soul has apparently outed Inspector Gadget to his bosses, who it seems are seeking to scare him off.

“Keep your nose clean, don't rock the boat” is the way to survive and advance in the government bureaucracies. Don’t let the public know what's really going on. The politicians and jobsworths keep feeding contrived reassuring statistics to the public, while claiming everything’s fine and is improving week by week. “So please vote for me again, and don’t show the boss up”.

Apparently the government are under the delusion that as employees of the electorate they have a right to hide what they are doing. More and more the electorate are working to disabuse their servants of this hubris. The growing power of the net and a few idealistic honourable voices are steadily breaking the grip of corrupt government as the secrecy breaks down and we move towards a transparent society.

Inspector Gadget is the least educated of our three examples, but he seems to have his heart in the right place and no patience those trying to stop him from doing his job:

“Never go out on foot patrol during the day in our town centre. It panics the population. They think that there is some major incident happening. Adults run out into the street and ask if their kids are safe at school two miles away. Shopkeepers ask if there has been an armed robbery. Even the local vicar appeared and asked if he could help with anything. A man approached me and said "I am a doctor, do you need me?". People search in vain for their old "protect and survive" leaflets, assuming a national disaster. An old lady asks me "are you one of those Specials dear?". I give her the stock reply that my mother thinks I'm special. I have gone and upset the status quo in our town again. Police simply do not exist unless you call them, or there is a local MP on a fact finding mission around.

“Meanwhile back at the Nick everyone is complaining because the Duty Inspector is nowhere to be found. "We tried everywhere" they accuse, "you were not where you should have been" they bleat.

“Actually, I was absolutely where I should have been. And the probationer I was with now knows that I still know the best places to park up out of CCTV range to have a crafty tab!”

Our last example, Doctor Crippin, is from our optimistically, or euphemistically, named “National Health Service”, the government medical cartel. Here Crippin explains one of the many ways in which governments corruptly waste your money, while at the same time creating counterproductive incentives:

“I thought you should know how the government is spending your hard earned money this year. Much the same as last year. We [the medical practice Dr.Crippin works for] get paid for scoring points. And points mean prizes. There are a maximum of 980 "domain" points available to our practice and we have until March of next year to get them all. Each point is worth £373.80 to the practice. There are 980 points available, which means there is £366,324 up for grabs.”—
“How do we score points?

“1. The government is keen for all GPs to offer ten minute appointments. You can solve all the problems in the world in ten minutes. Seven and a half minutes would not be long enough, and fifteen minutes would be excessive. We do ten minute appointments. We did last year. We will next year. So we fill in the form.

“"Do you do ten minute appointments?"

“"Yes."

“That scores 33 points or, to put it in terms understandable to the taxpayer, £12,335.40. Ker-ching...

“2. The practice will undertake a patient satisfication survey. Four hundred questionnaires put out in the waiting room, just like last year. 25 points. £9345.00. Ker-ching...

“3. The practice will reflect on the patient survey and produce an action plan. 20 points. £7476.00 Ker-ching...

“4. Having done the survey and produced an action plan, the practice will describe how it will report the findings to the patients. 30 points. £11,241.00 Ker-ching...

“I will not go on in such detail. But recording everyone's BP - £31.025, monitoring diabetes £34,763, recording patients' smoking status and telling them to stop - £25,416. Keeping good records - £32,521.”

All three blogs have a large back catalogues of anecdotes. They also have lots of links to other similar blogs, and thus are good place to start your explorations.

He was claiming that anyone who did not ascribe to his mad visions was not a real or complete moslem.

In the cut below, we have:

“We believe Islam is superior, we believe Islam will be implemented one day.”

By which the moonbat clearly means an end to liberal democracy and
its replacement with a dictatorial theocracy.

That is the nature of ‘islamofascism’.

This is the nuttery ‘we’ are advised not to ‘offend’.

It seems that we have a problem on our hands when fundamentalists like
Ahminastraightjacketorshouldbe and Chavez come to the advanced world [to the UN] and presume to lecture/rant
at the West on their ‘better’ solutions to world problems. Yet again, a left-wing kook and an islamist kook make common cause.

It’s been a bad day for the new world order, what with a military coup
by an alleged muslim in Thigh Land and a socialist in Hungary clinging to power he gained by now admitted lies,
while the supposed world forum is invaded by moonbats.

“But Mr Reid was unrepentant: "I know it's not easy. I'm a parent with two
boys and I know how hard it is to raise children and to know everything
about them ... But there are some circumstances when we need to intervene.
There is no nice way of saying this but there are fanatics looking to
groom and brainwash children, including your children for suicide bombing.
Grooming them to kill themselves in order to murder others."

“When the home secretary described 9/11, 7/7 in London and the conflicts in
Iraq and Afghanistan as battles between modern and fanatical values in
Islam, it provoked some of the 30-strong audience. Abu Izzadeen, in white
flowing robes, interrupted him: "How dare you come to a Muslim area when
over 1,000 Muslims have been arrested?" Mr Reid was a tyrant and an enemy
of Islam. When Muslim women told him it was a "time for dialogue" he told
them to "be quiet" before being ushered out by stewards and police.

“Mr Reid resumed his speech, saying: "However sensitive these issues, we
must never allow ourselves to be shouted down. I should be able to go to
any part of Britain and discuss these matters."

“A second protester held signs saying "John Reid Go to Hell" and "Home
Office = Terrorist Office" before Anjem Choudary interrupted a question
and answer session to tell the home secretary that Muslims did not need
British values. "We believe Islam is superior, we believe Islam will be
implemented one day. It is very rich for you to come here and say we need
to monitor our children when your government is murdering people in Iraq
and Afghanistan." He too was ushered out.” [Quoted from guardian.co.uk]

All comment I have seen so far suggests a high degree of simply not
understanding the thesis put forward by Benedict.

He is in fact contrasting two attitudes to ‘god’:

he/it is unknowable;

reason can approach some aspects of ‘god’.

The first, Benedict is attributing to some branches (theology) of catholicism and
islam. He is approximately saying that approach leads to chaos, or to irrationality.

Benedict is arguing an enlightenment approach (no.2 above) where reason is central
to ‘religion’ and that reason argues against violence. He is then challenging ‘islam’ to ‘put up’.

I fully welcome his robust approach and his insistence on honest
dialogue.

Benedict is approximately arguing for reciprocity if islam is to be given respect. He is arguing against what amounts to simplistic human-based relativistic ethics. (He is claiming that puts catholicism potentially on the same team as islam.)

But, to repeat; he is saying violence is out of place in reason, and is
claiming that as the catholic/christianist starting position. He is essentially asking of ‘islam’ if ‘they’ will accept that starting position.

Benedict’s argument is highly complex, and it actively invites/challenges dialogue.

Note: Benedict is increasingly showing himself to be a man of reason. If this is a correct interpretation, this is a radically important development.

“The Pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th-century
Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on
the truths of Christianity and Islam.
—
“He said, I quote: 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and
there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to
spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
—
“Many Muslims accused Benedict of seeking to promote Judeo-Christian
dominance over Islam.
—
“Few in Turkey, especially, failed to pick up on Benedict's reference to
Istanbul as Constantinople - the city's name more than 500 years ago -
before it was conquered by Muslim Ottoman Turks.”

Is ‘Islam’ fearful of discussing its history?
If so, why the continual references to ‘crusaders’?

Past acts of violence have long been debated in the advanced world.
Is there a problem with such debates in ‘islamic’ areas?

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the German-born Pope, saying his
message had been misunderstood. "It is an invitation to dialogue between religions and the Pope has
explicitly urged this dialogue, which I also endorse and see as urgently
necessary," she said Friday.”

Just so.

“What Benedict XVI makes clear is a decisive and uncompromising rejection
of any use of violence in the name of religion.”

And is this a problem to ‘Islam’?

“In the United States, a Muslim group, the Council for American-Islamic
Relations, asked for a meeting with a Vatican representative and urged
more efforts at improving understanding between Muslims and Roman
Catholics.”

Then let ‘Islam’ involve itself in dialogue and stop the violence and
posturing.

“[...] as if you can only have a conversation that deals - however remotely -
with Islam on Muslim terms[...]”

“If you're looking for a real critique of Islam in the speech, there is
one tucked away in the text, but hardly anyone noticed. The Pope suggests
that the Islamic idea of God is so transcendent that he cannot be seen in
terms of human reason. He cites one medieval Islamic scholar, Ibn Hazn,
who says that God is entirely remote from our rational categories.

“This may not sound like much to get worked up about, but Benedict plainly
sees this approach as the opposite of the Christian way of looking at
faith and reason [1]. And indeed, a Rome-based Muslim theologian, Adnane
Mokrani, has pointed out that this is only one Islamic view of God's
nature, and other schools of Muslim thought are very different. Now that's
proper religious dialogue.

“As for the Pope's notional Islamophobia, he's had rather a good record
until now in terms of the issues that agitate Muslims. He was sympathetic
to their reaction to the Danish cartoons, and he was strongly opposed to
the conflict in Lebanon and the war in Iraq.

“The irony of this row is that it is the opposite of what the Pope was
trying to achieve. Benedict ended his speech by hoping for a new dialogue
between the sciences, religions and cultures "which is so urgently needed
today". It looks, from this miserable episode, as if you can only have a
conversation that deals - however remotely - with Islam on Muslim terms.
Not much of a dialogue, then.”

Unlike the last pope, this one is no intellectual lightweight. His speech is right on target and hits the jihadis where it hurts.

The dishonest attempts to justify violence through ‘religion’.

and

the widespread appeal to force in place of reason.

“What Benedict XVI emphasized was a decisive and uncompromising
renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion," Merkel
noted.
—
“Italian European parliament vice president Mario Mauro condemned as
"monstrous" the manipulation of the Pope's remarks by Islamic leaders
which he claimed were used to "hit out at Christians and the West.

“The controversy was evidence of the "gravity of the danger we are facing"
he told the ANSA press agency on Sept 15, and urged Europeans to "defend
reason" against the onslaught of "Islamist-Nazi ideology that permeates
fundamentalist thought.
—
“ [...] the argument being proffered by the Pope was that "anyone who engages
in violence ceases being a believer; anyone, Christian or Muslim, who goes
along with violence goes against Reason and God, whose is the source of
Reason," [...]

“Sadly, some people cannot avoid seeing the conflict between the West and
Islam except in political terms. Since the Pope is a Westerner, it must
logically follow that he is 'against' us. And having failed to understand
what the Pope says, all that they can say is that he criticized jihad and
for this reason he certainly 'must' be an enemy," Fr. Samir said.

“The tragedy in this controversy, Fr. Samir suggested was that "only by
listening to the Pope's suggestions, and those of a few Muslim
intellectuals, can Islam's chances for renewal become real."

“ "It is high time that Islam deal with modernity; not to be swallowed up by
it, but rather to take what good it has to offer and improve on it," he
said.” [Quoted from jpost.com]

“As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language.”

It is obvious that Melanie McDonagh has a poor grasp of Benedict’s meaning at this point. Benedict never introduces a foolish concept of any such “opposite”.For more.

“ "If you talk to your typical person across America, they would be
appalled," she said. "God made us male and female, and God makes no
mistakes. To teach a child at an early age self-hatred, and that's what
this gender variance is, is very sad.”
—

“San Francisco mom Marci Riseman, whose 4-year-old son likes ballet,
princess dresses and pink dragons, attributes the acceptance he has met to
living in a liberal region. His preschool is open to his atypical play,
and others in his ballet class don't care if he wears a tutu, Riseman
said. ”
—

“ "She refused to wear pink, barrettes or anything fancy in her hair. She
wanted her hair short. She didn't want to wear lace, dresses, patent
leather shoes. She didn't want to play with dolls. Well, she had a
dollhouse, but she put animals in it," Hansen said.”